Comments on: The comments about the WSJ commentary are pretty good…

By: Crusty old academic

Crusty old academic — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:56:47 +0000

Let’s put some of this in perspective. First, from the beginning of the 20th century until about 1930’s men and women enrolled in college in more or less equal numbers. Some of the women were in 2 year teachers’ college programs, so that early on there were about 1.5X more men than women in 4 year programs. The balance shifted in the 1930’s as an increasing number of men enrolled in colleges in hopes of job training. That caused a big imbalance for about a decade. After WW2, women started catching up. The male/female imbalance in colleges decreased, until parity was reached two decades later, around 1978 or 1979. Since then the rate of increase of female enrollment has been greater than the rate of increase of male enrollment. The largest explanatory factor appears to be economic. The return has been greater for women than for men, at least until recently. The male-hostile programs and events and the female-favoritism programs (women-only scholarships and internships, girls-only science camps, etc.) mostly were put in place long after college enrollment of women exceeded that of men.
Will there be a restoration of balance in the next few years? It is difficult to say, but boys can hardly have failed to notice that the domestic automobile industry has badly declined, that manufacturing jobs of all sorts continue to disappear overseas and that the construction trades (never more than 10% of the male workforce and never very lucrative) are not doing well either.
Meanwhile, I agree with those who say that we need more emphasis on literacy, with boy-friendly reading lists, a structured learning environment that encourages friendly competition and all the rest of the constructive suggestions that have been made here and elsewhere.

By: Emily Randall

Emily Randall — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:20:36 +0000

Although Dr. Lufkin makes some valid points about huge changes in premarital dating behavior and young men no longer being motivated to raise a family, I disagree that most illegitimate pregnancies are a voluntary choice or that government benefits are the main motivator. I very much doubt that such “benefits” go through the minds of many men or women before they have sex. All the couple thinks about is the short-term reward - they do not think about either possible consequences or rewards in the long term. And many of these women do indeed want the father to be around, but if the father choose not to be, or if he makes himself a burden to the women, i.e., a poor excuse for a partner or father, then the women will decide she is better off without him.

By: London Tuition

London Tuition — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:52:13 +0000

The debate between the gender gap is certainly an interesting one. At the tuition company I work for in London we tutor people across the academic spectrum but find that more boys than girls suffer from learning difficulties and there is evidence to suggest that boys are more prone to difficulties such as dyslexia and dyspraxia. This talk on dyslexia makes this point: http://www.dystalk.com/talks/31-what-is-dyslexia As yet scientists haven’t figured out exaclty why this might be the case but it adds an interesting other factor to the debate.

By: William D. Strinden MD

William D. Strinden MD — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:07:32 +0000

In seventh grade when Cindy Taylor told me that I looked good in green slacks and an orange & green striped shirt, I begged my mother to let me get five varieties of orange and green clothes, one for each day of the week. As a Freshman in college an attractive coed promised me that she would make it worth my while to help her paint her apartment. I sanded and painted like there was no tomorrow. The bottom line is that the greatest motivator of men is women. Thirty-five years ago there was a low percentage of young women having premarital sex, and in my peer group if there was not a ring in the picture the young man at least had to have marriageable potential. That meant that he had “promise” and would likely be able to support a family. When the Great Society was implemented in the 1960’s, our nation had an illegitimacy rate below 10%, between 3 and 4% for Caucasians. Now the national illegitimacy rate approaches 40% and is 74.5% for Black Americans. A young woman who becomes pregnant without the benefit of a husband qualifies immediately for free food through WIC, housing subsidy, electricity subsidy, free medical coverage through Medicaid, free medical care until age 18 for her child as long as she remains unmarried and dependent upon the State, a monthly check for her child support paid by the federal government, and college tuition support for being a single mother. This is common knowledge and illegitimate pregnancy is more often than not a voluntary choice. To be honest, it is often difficult for a woman to put up with a man. We are sloppy, not always good housekeepers, and sometimes ventose. The unspoken message to all young men today is that we do not need you prepare yourselves to support a family because the government will support your child. We do not want you to marry the young woman you impregnate because she will lose benefits. If you are a young man in our society today, you will principally be valued as a semen donor, but then you are expected to butt out. The Department of Health and Human services has a multimillion dollar program to encourage young men to be responsible fathers while at the same time we are paying young women to be single mothers. If all support for illegitimacy ended tomorrow the rate of birth out of wedlock was return to 1950’s levels in five years and boys would no longer be “Lost Boys.” Young woman would demand it and would make it worth our while to prepare to be head of a family.
William D. Strinden MD Lufkin, Texas

By: richard

richard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:43:49 +0000

To Jack:

Intersting. A former NOW president wrote a similiar argument in usa today: when men see that women rule higher education, the will devalue higher education.

By: tim-10-ber

tim-10-ber — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:30:50 +0000

I wrote MSNBC to request they invite you to appear on Meet the Press. Good luck!! Your voice needs to be heard - now!

By: Fuller

Fuller — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:28:14 +0000

BTW Richard,

You have hit a chord–lost of parents visiting colleges this year were shocked by the ratio of girls versus boys attending college fairs, visiting days, and college visit sessions. At some it was 80% girls. And this is at the tippy top of the demographic peak of college applicants.

Waiting to buy the book. Best of luck with it.

By: Fuller

Fuller — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:24:07 +0000

There is a strong aspect of explanative truth to Ms. Elgee’s comments-divorce has devastated the nurturing of boys to intellectual men. I’ve seen that too–in the performance–or lack of it, of some of my son’s friends. And there is no question that my son’s high academic performance (top in his class; high SAT’s) is due in no small part to some tough love dynamics posed by both mom and dad (yes, still married!) And the ‘backpack’ comment is painfully accurate!!

However, another problem is that boys can’t be boys. Boy’s prep schools , for example, are getting rare as dodos, and unless I am mistaken, there are no more men’s colleges. Are Smith, Mt Holyoke and Wellesley going coed? Why is it considered sexist to insist on the equivalent men’s schools? There used to be oodles of men’s colleges–I am old enough to remember. Where Iron John at State when we need him?

Most boys are now looking at college as an extension of high school, rather than a cut above. This means many boys are looking at college as an ongoing process–think online colleges in the gameboy generation–and not a 4 year destination. Further aggravate by the worst job market in 75 years and you have the recipe fully mixed. Disaster set.

Colleges need to maintain their 50/50 ratios not for dating purposes (C’mon Richard–you don’t really believe that!) but because it will thoroughly *iss off the donor base. Equality is fine; sexual imbalance is not.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:11:23 +0000

The male of the species, having evolved from the hunter gatherer into today’s risk taker in business, is constantly on the lookout for fresh opportunities and ways to buck the trends. Never satisfied with following the pack ,he sees the rise and success of the female gender in higher education as a sign to move on to the next conquest and leave the monotony of higher education to the traditional caregivers and mothers.

As horribly sexist as this might sound, it could partially explain why boys no longer see the importance of higher education. Perhaps the underlining stigma is that a college education and excelling at school is now considered “girls work. Just as the technical fields such as engineering and science have the stigma of “boys work”.

By: richard

richard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:05:58 +0000

Alas, I fear Oprah has failed to locate my phone number. Maybe later…